NATIVE LANDS COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1681, 14 April 1883, Page 2

NATIVE LAN DS COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Ykstkrday.— (licfnrc their Honours Chief tiidjjc Miitdonald, and Judge Pnckcy, and Hereuini To loko, Assessor.) The Whakamaru Re-hearing Judgment. TilK Court opened nt 10 o'clock this morning, when there was a large attendance of both natives and Europeans. His Honour the Chief Judge pave judgment in the above case as follows :—: — This is :\ re-hearing, and on the application of Aperahaine to Kume to finally ascertaiu the parties entitled to a part of a block of land known as Whakamaru. This land with adjoining country is alleged by Aperalrima to have been acquired through conquest by certain confederate chiefs, namely, Whaiti, Wairangi, Pipito, Opokoiti, Tamaiti Hura, and Tamaiti Whana, and on a division of the spoil to have fallen to the share of Tamaiti Hura, under M'hom as their ancestor the counter claimants base their claim, alleging that his descendants had remained in undisputed possession up to the time of the migration of the Ngatiraukawa to Kapiti. On that occasion it is set up that Totoia remained behind so as to maintain the Ngatikikopiri title by an occupancy continued till death, when [ by reason of doubt as to his sepulture a 11 tapu" was imposed on the land by some of his hapu, men living at Taupo, which was only removed in 1865, when possession was resumed and since continued by the applicants. The respondents, Kaiapa Te Rani>ikaripiripia, Hitiri Te Paerata and the persons represented by them, concurred in the alleged conquest, but contended that the whole of the land now known as the Whakamaru was entered upon and possessed by Maikorche and Whatukawa, song of Whaiti and Wairangi, above named, / immediately after the conquest, and that it has been occupied by them ever since ; that it never' formed part of the estate of ' Tamaiti Hura, and that the claim, set up by' the appellant is without foundation. The questions for the consideration of the court, therefore, appear to be : (1) Did this portion of the Whakamartt block fall to the share of Tamaiti 1 Huri, and, , if so, was the occupation con* tinuous ? (2) Did Maikorehe and Whatu* kawa take possession of and occupy the Whakamaru block, including land now the subject of re-Hearing, and were they ever dispossessed ? After a hearing, in which we have the assurance that every. thing which skill and industry could advance has been adduced ou both sides, it appears to the court that whafe ever right, if any, the ancestors of the appellants bad, wa# voluntarily resigned when they abandoned the land ; that the fact of Totoia remaining behind 'to maintain possession (even if he did die on the land, about which there is much doubt) could not constitute any ground of claim. to the land. As to the second question, the court is of opinion that Maikorihi wd> Whatu Kawa did take' p-OsaessiQiQ of the land, before,

court, and there it no -evidence to show that they were erer dispossessed. The cotirt having decided that the appellant had no title it becomes unnecessary tofdiicass <;he matter set up a« admissions t tfor admissions* however useful in deciding a doubtful question of title, of courae cannot confer it where none exists. .On delivery of the jtidgment something like a; scene occurred between the Chief Judge and Dr. Brtller. Thelatter* in a somewhat excited tone, announced on behatf of those for whom he appeared that he wa« unable to agree with the judgment just now delivered. It was against the weight of, evidence ; but it was not on that \ gtonnd alone that he protested against the judgment. As a matter of fact, however, he had something to urge against the assessor, and that was the ground upon which he principally based hie objection. It would be his duty to advjae his clients to appeal to the highest court open to them, viz,: the HoUses of Parliament, with a view to gettjng a- Parliamentary commission appointed to enquire into the matter. He could not there say all he had on his mind to say, because if he did he would be'a'djudged guilty of disrespect to the court, as the observations he would have to make would be held to reflect most strongly upon the conduct of the assessor. Chief Judge Macdonald : Dr Bull«r should not make those remarks unless he was prepared to say all he had to say. Dr Briller : I cannot here say all I would like to say, as my remarks would lavqur of disrespect to the court. Chief Judge Macdonald: Then Dr Bnller should have said nothing. He should have been prepared to have stated forthwith all that he had to say on the subject, or else he should have let the subject alono altogether. In reply to a remark by Aperahama to Kume, Judge Mncdonald explained that the judgment had been arrived at after careful consideration. He would take them so far into his confidenco as to state that in the firat instance each of the judges had been allowed to arrive at his own individual conclusion. When they came to compare notes it was found that the assessor, whose conduct had been so un- j fairly reflected upon, was the only one of the£j&£ judges who had any nlea to advanWy behalf of Dr Buller's clients, the appellants, and it was only nftcr these points or pleas had been discussed along with others, that he saw fit to waive them. That would show them how very unjust was the reflection made upon the assessor. Dr Buller said that he wished to explain that it was not the assessor who bat on this case whose conduct he meant to impugn, but the conduct of another Assessor altogether. Against that assessor there wa* a general feeling on the part of the public at large. The Chief Judge : I am glad Dr Buller has made that explanation, as nothing would have been more unfair than for him to have reflected upon the conduct of the assessor who took part in this proceeding. The court then rose. The court reassembled in the afternoon to hear the Waotu No. 2 sub-divisions, in which Mr Sheehan and Dr Buller represented the claimants. Nothing satisfactory was arranged, and the court was adjourned till to-morrow morning at I o'clock, when the cases will be contested, The court will not adjourn until Monday, when a six day's adjournment will take place, to enable the Chief Judge to proceed to town to attend to departmental business.